Would you vote for a hypothetical US Senate candidate like this:

[bluestateguy]

Let's say our candidate is a solid liberal Democrat in the mold of Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown. He is well-experienced, smart and has no traces of corruption.

He is liberal on all the issues of importance to us, but there is one hitch: he doesn't believe in Senate filibusters. His view is that the will of the majority should prevail after a thorough debate and period of deliberation. So he says that, for example, while he is against the Keystone pipeline, he will vote for cloture to cut off debate and then vote no on the actual bill. Or on a measure to repeal Obamacare, he'll vote yes on cloture but then no on the actual bill, all the while vociferously arguing against repeal. He says that were he a senator in 2006 when Samuel Alito was appointed to the USSC by George Bush, he would have voted for cloture, given a speech opposing his confirmation, and then voted no for the actual confirmation vote.

He simply will not do filibusters, no matter what the policy or who the president is. His view is there should be debate, deliberation, negotiation, amendments, but then finality, and the majority should rule.

Would you vote for this candidate?

[djean111]

1. The problem I have with the "majority rule" part is that usually the majority in Congress

is doing what they are paid/instructed to do by lobbyists and/or their respective party.
Majority rule should mean the will of the people who elected the politicians, and I don't believe that many of them give a rat's ass about what their constituents want, once they get elected. A little lip service around reelection/donation time, but that's it.
Good question - but I fear I am too cynical to really answer it. Not filibustering to delay something that one feels is very wrong - seems very wrong.

[OKNancy]

2. sounds a little like Russ Feingold

[bluestateguy]

8. Finegold was a little like that

He wasn't who I specifically had in mind, but it embodies his approach to some degree.

[LuvNewcastle]

3. It would depend on who was running against him in the primary

and how they compared on the issues as well as personal characteristics. I wouldn't rule out your hypothetical candidate, but the filibuster issue is a serious one to consider.

[SheilaT]

4. Considering the current system

of fake filibusters means that every single piece of legislation needs 60 votes to pass, I think a simple majority would be a very good idea.

[bigwillq]

5. Most likely

A lot of factors at play, but I would most likely not hold their filibuster views against them.

edited

[nakocal]

6. This hypothetical Senator is NOT supporting majority rule

The Democratic Senators represent millions more Americans than do the republican senators. Therefore, even though there are more republican senators, the majority of Americans voted democratic. That means he needs to support a filibuster against bills that will hurt the majority of Americans.

[jschurchin]

7. Nope.

No chance in hell.

[LostOne4Ever]

9. I would not hold it against them. (nt)

[SickOfTheOnePct]

10. I would not hold it against him

I'm against the filibuster, so this would be a plus for me.